Ernst: 10 reasons not to raze Venice Circus Arena

Published: Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 4:37 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, March 2, 2013 at 4:37 p.m.

An inspection has labeled the 50-year-old Venice Circus Arena as an unsafe structure. The city has 60 days to devise a plan to deal with it. While demolition may be the easy way out, here are 10 reasons not to take that approach:

Facts

• Circuses played a big role in the history of this area. Yes, Venice could commemorate that history with displays in a museum. But there's no way to replicate the feeling of standing in a building where the world's top circus performers once rehearsed for the “Greatest Show on Earth.”

• The arena, and the culture it represents, has meaning for a lot of people, some of it simply a product of good memories from sitting in the audience during childhood. Circuses are not dead. Many retired, or still practicing, circus folks live in our area. They are a minority population whose interests should not be disregarded.

• Venice could redeem itself. City government should be ashamed of the way it has allowed the arena to deteriorate over the past 20 years under its ownership and control. If it had set aside even $50,000 a year for maintenance, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

• In 2010, City Council granted the nonprofit Circus Arts Foundation five years to raise $500,000 toward renovating the arena. That time has not passed, yet the city is now threatening to raze the structure, having not met even the most minimal expectation of keeping it safe. A deal is a deal. The city should uphold its part.

• A refurbished arena could be a money-maker for the city, or at least spur the tourism that helps other businesses in the area make money. This overly optimistic notion, or so it seems, comes from Economic Consulting Services of California, commissioned by the foundation for a prognosis. ECS concluded the arena would gross $4.3 million the first year with trade shows, sporting events, plays, conferences, social gatherings and concerts (The analysts didn't say it, but circuses should be added to that list). The firm estimated costs at $3.2 million, leaving a surplus of $1.1 million the first year alone. City council should at the very least explore the methodology and assumptions behind ECS's projections.

• ECS's numbers may be pie-in-the-sky, but so are the alternatives suggested for the site. At this time, on paper, publicly announced, there are no proposals for businesses or anything else to replace the arena. Nothing. Sure, everyone has ideas, but someone has to actually invest in them before Venice Airport, on whose land this sits, can collect the $460,000-a-year fair market rent the property supposedly is worth. And the replacement ideas that have arisen a small shopping center, for instance — are just the same-old, same-old.

• The circus arena is distinctive. Most places don't have one, and it could be a real novelty if developed with imagination.

• Wilson Structural Consultants' inspection of the structure revealed a glass half-full, not half-empty as some have suggested. The roof is shot, and most of the add-ons should be demolished, but the steel beams supporting the arena where Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey performed are still in good shape. The beauty of that lies in the fact that this skeleton represents the original structure, which was open. Although the beams would have to be covered in some way to prevent further deterioration, recreating an open arena would not only adhere to historic authenticity, but it would cost less than the $12 million that ECS had projected for renovation, presumably of the entire structure, based on $100 a square foot.

• “Once specific repairs have been designed, it may be determined that renovation is not economically feasible,” engineer Richard Wilson wrote. Or, it may be that it is. No one really knows because no one has looked at it that closely. The arena, and the history it represents, deserves that close look.

• If, after they've gathered all the facts, city council members still fear the costs of renovation, they could finance it through bonding, which would require a vote of the public. Former Mayor Ed Martin has suggested that, and it's not a bad idea.

Bottom line, when the city buys something, it does so only after due diligence determines the value of the investment. It should perform that same level of due diligence when it demolishes something, especially something so entwined with Venice's history.

<p>An inspection has labeled the 50-year-old Venice Circus Arena as an unsafe structure. The city has 60 days to devise a plan to deal with it. While demolition may be the easy way out, here are 10 reasons not to take that approach:</p><p>• Circuses played a big role in the history of this area. Yes, Venice could commemorate that history with displays in a museum. But there's no way to replicate the feeling of standing in a building where the world's top circus performers once rehearsed for the “Greatest Show on Earth.”</p><p>• The arena, and the culture it represents, has meaning for a lot of people, some of it simply a product of good memories from sitting in the audience during childhood. Circuses are not dead. Many retired, or still practicing, circus folks live in our area. They are a minority population whose interests should not be disregarded.</p><p>• Venice could redeem itself. City government should be ashamed of the way it has allowed the arena to deteriorate over the past 20 years under its ownership and control. If it had set aside even $50,000 a year for maintenance, we wouldn't be having this discussion.</p><p>• In 2010, City Council granted the nonprofit Circus Arts Foundation five years to raise $500,000 toward renovating the arena. That time has not passed, yet the city is now threatening to raze the structure, having not met even the most minimal expectation of keeping it safe. A deal is a deal. The city should uphold its part.</p><p>• A refurbished arena could be a money-maker for the city, or at least spur the tourism that helps other businesses in the area make money. This overly optimistic notion, or so it seems, comes from Economic Consulting Services of California, commissioned by the foundation for a prognosis. ECS concluded the arena would gross $4.3 million the first year with trade shows, sporting events, plays, conferences, social gatherings and concerts (The analysts didn't say it, but circuses should be added to that list). The firm estimated costs at $3.2 million, leaving a surplus of $1.1 million the first year alone. City council should at the very least explore the methodology and assumptions behind ECS's projections.</p><p>• ECS's numbers may be pie-in-the-sky, but so are the alternatives suggested for the site. At this time, on paper, publicly announced, there are no proposals for businesses or anything else to replace the arena. Nothing. Sure, everyone has ideas, but someone has to actually invest in them before Venice Airport, on whose land this sits, can collect the $460,000-a-year fair market rent the property supposedly is worth. And the replacement ideas that have arisen a small shopping center, for instance — are just the same-old, same-old.</p><p>• The circus arena is distinctive. Most places don't have one, and it could be a real novelty if developed with imagination.</p><p>• Wilson Structural Consultants' inspection of the structure revealed a glass half-full, not half-empty as some have suggested. The roof is shot, and most of the add-ons should be demolished, but the steel beams supporting the arena where Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey performed are still in good shape. The beauty of that lies in the fact that this skeleton represents the original structure, which was open. Although the beams would have to be covered in some way to prevent further deterioration, recreating an open arena would not only adhere to historic authenticity, but it would cost less than the $12 million that ECS had projected for renovation, presumably of the entire structure, based on $100 a square foot.</p><p>• “Once specific repairs have been designed, it may be determined that renovation is not economically feasible,” engineer Richard Wilson wrote. Or, it may be that it is. No one really knows because no one has looked at it that closely. The arena, and the history it represents, deserves that close look.</p><p>• If, after they've gathered all the facts, city council members still fear the costs of renovation, they could finance it through bonding, which would require a vote of the public. Former Mayor Ed Martin has suggested that, and it's not a bad idea.</p><p>Bottom line, when the city buys something, it does so only after due diligence determines the value of the investment. It should perform that same level of due diligence when it demolishes something, especially something so entwined with Venice's history.</p>